GR 30380; (February, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30380 February 28, 1973
LEONARDO GALEON, petitioner, vs. MARCIAL GALEON, ZOSIMA GALEON-CANDA, MATEO GALEON, and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, BRANCH II, LUCENA CITY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leonardo Galeon filed an amended complaint for partition against the private respondents, who are the legitimate children of the deceased Demetrio Galeon. He alleged that he is the illegitimate (adulterous) son of Demetrio, who acknowledged and recognized him as such during his lifetime. Demetrio died intestate, survived by his legitimate children, his spouse Felisa Venal, and the petitioner. After Felisa’s death, her share passed to the legitimate children, who then took exclusive possession of all properties, excluding the petitioner. The complaint prayed for judicial partition and an accounting of fruits.
The private respondents moved to dismiss the amended complaint on grounds including petitioner’s lack of legal capacity to sue and failure to state a cause of action. The respondent court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. It held that the petitioner lacked legal personality to sue because his pleading did not contain an allegation or proof that his filiation had been duly established as required by Article 887 of the Civil Code. The court concluded that without such establishment of filiation, the petitioner could not claim a right to inherit and, consequently, to demand partition.
ISSUE
Whether the amended complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for partition by an acknowledged illegitimate child.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court, through Justice Antonio, reversed the order of dismissal but on grounds different from the trial court’s reasoning. The Court clarified that in a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action, the court must hypothetically admit the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint to test their sufficiency. The amended complaint alleged that the petitioner was an acknowledged illegitimate son. Under the ruling in Paulino v. Paulino, such an allegation, if hypothetically admitted, is sufficient to constitute a cause of action for an illegitimate child to claim inheritance, provided the acknowledgment is properly alleged.
The trial court erred in requiring “proof” at the pleading stage; the veracity of the allegations is a matter for trial. However, the Court, applying Paulino, held that the allegation of acknowledgment in the complaint was insufficient because it was a mere conclusion of law. A proper allegation must state the ultimate facts showing the specific form and manner of acknowledgment, such as it being in a public document, and ideally attach the document itself as required by the Rules of Court. Since the complaint was technically deficient, the proper remedy was not outright dismissal but to afford the petitioner an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege the specific facts of acknowledgment with particularity. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.